*1 536 1925.
Syllаbus. 271U. S. the cause directions with to dismiss the petition without party. Utility costs either v. Public Commissioners Compania Filipinas, General De De Tabacos 249 U. S. cases Schwartz, 425; 216, Brownlow v. 261 U. S. cited.
Judgment peti- vacated with to dismiss directions tion without costs to party. either WEEKS, WAR, GOLTRA OF v. SECRETARY et al. THE THE CIRCUIT OF FOR CERTIORARI TO COURT APPEALS EIGHTH CIRCUIT. 27, 7, 1926. Argued April 28, June
No. 718. 1926. Decided possession of a fleet by A suit who had obtained lawful 1. one charter for belonging States, under a lease or boats to the United Engineers by direction years Chief of a term of executed army War,-to enjoin latter an official and wrongfully forcibly taking possession of boats officer require alleged conspiracy them, between pursuance and to of an already taken, is boats not restore some of the so the defendants to not a against States, and the United States is suit a 605, necessary Philadelphia Stimson, fol- v. 223 party. Co. distinguished. Roper, 335, P. 544. lowed. U. S. Wells authorizing lease the lessor to terminate the stipulation A in a 2. judgment, property if, in his lessee is not lease retake the valid, and, in obligations contract, complying under the is judgment question of faith, cn the the lessor’s of bad the absence P. 547. compliance conclusive. enjoin retaking prop- leased threatened In a suit lessee to 3. a preliminary injunction, for a erty, appeared, on motion it where actually from the taken the defendant showing, also, upon full that he had a a possession, plaintiff’s plaintiff right lease, under held that .the clear to retake injunction restoring possession pendente temporary to a entitled retaking accomplished through though had been a lite, even injunction. to avoid and was timed wrongful of force show P. (2d) 838, Fed. affirmed. v. WEEKS.
GOLTRA Argument for Petitioner. of Appeals to a decree of the Circuit Court Certiorari injunction rendered temporary reversed decree enjoin Goltra to suit Court, District by *2 from from seizing officer of War Secretary an,army which had been bargés, certain boats his possession acting for Engineers, him Chief by the leased to Secretary. The bill by direction United States already boats, of part restoration prayed also hearing. before were taken taken; and remainder posses of plaintiff’s restoration commanded The decree during the suit. interference enjoined .further sion and States, Ex 389. parte United See also S. Davis, W. Douglas Mr. with whom Joseph
Mr.
T.
brief,
petitioner.
Robert was on
jurisdic-
equity,
court of
Court,
The District
even
authority
respondents,
restrain the
tion
States, from inter-
the United
they were officers of
though
arbitrary,
an
property
petitioner
ference
relief cannot
manner; and such
illegal
unwarranted
one against.
that the
is
ground
suit
be defeated
Toll,
228;
v.
268 U. S.
Colorado
the United States.
Bank,
River
Noble v. Union
738;
9 Wheat.
Osborn v.
Stimson,
Co.,
Philadelphia
147
v.
165;
R. R.
U. S.
Co.
Watts,
525; Payne
234
S.
v.
605;
Lane v.
U.
223
Ry. Co.,
228;
Magnetic
255 U. S.
School
Pac.
Central
187 U. S.
Healing McAnnulty,
v.
commercial,
has entered into a
Where the Government
immunity
it cannot retain its
enterprise
profit,
governmental capacity.
in a
Bank
sovereign
suit as a
Bank,
Planter’s
9. Wheat.
Bank
904;
United States v.
Wister,
v.
318;
2
Briscoe
Ken
Kentucky v.
Pet.
Bank of
R.
2
Letson,
Louisville R.
v.
tucky,
257;
11 Pet.
How.
States,
201
43;
United
199 U. S.
Carolina
302; South
v.
§
Act, 1920.
(e), Transportation
is
option
purchase
of lease and
hot a
The contract
of the United States in
with the Government
TERM, 1925:
538
S.U.
Opinion of
Court.
had discre
District Court
capacity. The
sovereign
its
injunction,
temporary
tionary jurisdiction
grant
should, Appeals
the Court of
this discretion
and with
&
Rio Grande R. R.
interfered. Denver
v.
Brown,
Mfg.
v.
Rogers
Co.
146;
Fed.
Stearns
The decision of the court
eight
of law. Clause
process
due
property
of his
without
granting to
provision
not a forfeiture
the contract
therein, the
War,
designated
who is not
discretion, in
contract,
at his
to terminate
power
thereby
manner, and
seize the.
arbitrary
unwarranted
Cases, 258
Shipping Board
of the petitioner.
Eq. Juris;
906, 291;
Story,
L.
ch.
549; 6 R. C.
§
U. S.
&
1918, 1728;
14th
PM. W. B. R. Co.
XXXVII,
ed.,
§
Q.
Co.,
R.
& R.
Howard,
307;
Hartman v. C. B.
How.
*3
Co.,
Mo.
v. U.
App. 271;
Engineering
United
S.
States
v.
236;.Dist.
234 U. S.
Columbia
Camden Iron Wks.
Cheney
Libby,
181 U. S.
455;
69;
S.
Peck,
64;
States v.
United States
Harness
v.Co.
Graham,
Mr. Lon. O. Special Assistant to the Attorney General, with whom Solicitor Mitchell, General Assistant' Letts, Attorney General and Mr. J. Frank Staley, Special Attorney Assistant General, were on the briefs, for respondents. Taft prepared
Mr. the opinion of the Chief Justice Court.*
This was a in equity suit brought the United States District Court for the Eastern District Missouri, reaches here from the Circuit Court of Appeals for
* Mr. Justice Holmes oрinion, announced the- Chief Justice the. being absent. v. WEEKS.
GOLTRA Opinion - of the Court. Circuit, The general purpose certiorari. Eighth to here, Goltra, petitioner F. filed Edward bill was barges of towboats and the seizure of enjoin a.fleet him lessee. held ás River had been Mississippi Engi- the Chief Secretary War, that the charged It Chief, Inland Ashbum, Q. and Colonel T. neers, in a con- engaged Waterways Service, were Coastwise He him of the deprive boats. unlawfully spiracy of them and to threatened seizure sought enjoin restored already been'taken those of them which had n n to his possession. by General May 28,1919, made to Goltrа was The lease lessor, by as the direction of Engineers, Black, Chief for the Unitéd States. It War, acting Secretary three or barges nearing completion, and nineteen leased constructed, for a term of five years not yet four towboats barge was the first towboat delivered from the date covenanted to com- operate The lessee the lessee. on the fleet, River and Mississippi the whole mon carrier of the lease and of period tributaries, its iron coal and other transporting ore, thereof, renewals excess of the rail prevailing rates commodities аt rail with- prevailing than tariffs at not less tariffs, and The War. lessee was consent out the fleet, and to expenses operating all maintain pay barge towboat and of the fleet term each the. during satisfaction condition lessor. operating good of the fleet by any earned be for the salvage n benefit deducting expenses. after of the United *4 operating expenses above and mainte- earnings The net were to cargo by each ton of turned over the nance be. for evéry ninety of War days,, to the de- lessee Treasury, earnings in the until the net to his credit posit cost of the vessels, the full amount the several equalled cent, per. per annum; oh the cost plus interest and 27Í U. S. for the ful- to be held banks, Louis deposit then St. towas The lessee the lease. the terms of fillment''of moved and tonnage of all accurate accounts keep detailed subject to expenses, operating his moneys all received and and the representatives, or his of the lessor inspection the subject approval to the to be expenses were overhead referred to be objected to were any items lessor, the final. to be Secretary War, whosе decision lease, of the expiration the months prior Within three if the or SO'desired renewal, sooner any or of period fleet and value of the the lessee, appraise was to board fleet the purchasing option given lessee was fifteen promissory earnings fund from the net title of the property running years, for fifteen *5 WEEKS. GOLTRA Opinión of the Court. their undertak difficulty performing found the war had lease, plaintiff making of the that, after ings; shipment of com many a good secured contracts New Orleans to oil from kinds —of modities of different manganese Louis, Kentucky to St. Illinois, coal from' he rate whiсh Louis; that to St. New Orleans from cent, rail rate; the prevailing of per for was 80 arranged War, he could Secretary that, applied when some of his commodi transport permission not obtain re imposed were rate; that conditions a proper ties at charge Mississippi of officers the consent quiring Government, to Gol of the enterprise another Warrior, impossible thereof it was by and that reason rate, tra’s acts carrier; as a common operate him to wrongfully pre War the Secretary plaintiff out the terms and con carrying the lessor vented Q. John W. Weeks and T. оf the contraci ditions .that combination, defendants, acting named as Ashburn, termi to declare the contracts undertook wrongfully from the and, 3, 1923, plain on March demanded nated, war of .the boats without posession immediate tiff the unlawfully threatened law, wrongfully rant of force, caused some of the towboats them to take actually seized, threatening and were to take to be barges so; restrained would do that the unless all, them and that remedy at law for the redress adequate no plaintiff of. He therefore asked tem wrongs complained restraining granted immediately, order to be porary him, fleet to and a rule on the de restoration . why a temporary injunction to show cause fendants A cause was March issued, rule show should not issue. on defendant. 25, 1923, taken the whole fleet had been over
It appeared under an order Ashburn by Colonel Sunday, was on and there was a taking over War. Ashburn, anticipating of Colonel part purpose 271U. fleet as were St. such injunction, remove jurisdiction out of the river, to be Louis, across filed re- defendants All Court. Missouri District *6 had A was hearing defenses. rule out setting turns to the was evidence injunction, temporary for on' motion .a the fleet had that Court fоund taken, the District and to the restored and should be seized improperly been at- from enjoined the defendants and plaintiffs, of the hearing final until a possession tempt to resume case. out prohibition a of sought writ
The then defendants of the further consideration to prevent of this Court States, parte Ex Court. by the District cause prohibition file a petition The leave remedy by appeal that ground was on denied, adequate. was from the District Court 1921, ap- in that, March, Goltra The shows evidence fixed at his as a common carrier to have rates plied cent, rail and he was allowеd rates, prevailing per make rates. March, 1922, on those from that time until of 1922, Secretary In War notified him that March, any operation he on lower Missis- approve could not into the Government sippi entering competition with line, Warrior and that he could Mississippi approve cent, In 1922, an 80 There. ob- April, rate Goltra per him- limitation, to the that he had jected obligated saying Kentucky manganese coal from transport self Thereupon from at this rate. oil New Orleans the Secre- of advised him that rate on the Mis- tary War lower cent, cent, sissippi per must be per raised tariffs, thе rail future, of for the thus him to allowing transportation complete already contracts entered By he into, May 25, 1922, written. letter cent, not less 80 per he was allowed rate than many rail rates for different commodities. if decided to that, operate him he his boats
’assured v. WEEKS. GOLTRA ¡536 all com- carry authorized Mississippi, upper that the cent., than 80 per at not less
modities officers cooperate instructed the Warrior had been Service making fleet a in to the fullest' extent with him success. War, Secretary of 13, 1923, After on March year,
n fleet, sent of the little use he had made view following notice to Goltra: “ eight reserved right paragraph Pursuant May 28, 1919, supplement dated the contract the United May 26, 1921, you thereto dated between of-a fleet as a common carrier operation barges, and nineteen and the erection four towboats my hereby are unloading facilities, you notified have not the terms and con- judgment you complied with you operate failed to ditions said *7 barges as a carrier and in and common the said towboats particulars. other “ supple- declare the said contract and the I therefore upon hereby terminated. You are direсted ment thereto posses- immediately of this notice to deliver receipt the unloading towboats and and barges, said sion of the to the pursuant supplemental erected facilities funds of the Colonel for United paid and Waterways Chief Inland and Coastwise Ashbum, Q. T. deliver this and who is instructed notice, who will Service, property receive and for receipt the authorized and mentioned.” herein similar Engineers Chief of sent a 27, 1923, the
April acknowledged receipt Goltra the Sec- letter to Goltra. protested against the letter, action. retary’s the Court of reversed the action of Appeals The Circuit enjoin- the restoring District Court in fleet Goltra dismiss defendants, the and held that the motion to ing the order quash temporary restraining and to should the was granted, ground that States been an necessary party actipn. a could not be sued such 271U. S. Circuit Court agree Appeals not with the We can bill. necessary party States was a that the United suitably The bill was framed to secure relief from right without alleged conspiracy defendants lawful lease away plaintiff from the the boats of which by take that he alleged acquired pos- or had lawful charter was enjoyment years. for a оf five He session and term aid avoid threatened seeking trespass equitable were by persons government that who officers. property then trespass, If was a the officers it Government acting professed whether they should be restrained to be not. or Neither nor Gov- they for Government represent trespass upon could they ernment which may settled they is well another, by a stayed proceeding unlawful court of com- be in their the United though even States petent jurisdiction, is not a may profess party act can they whom illegality, reason of their By made their acts be one. justi- derive nо personal are official threatened acts doing them in asserted from their agency fication point fully Philadelphia covered by Government.. Stimson, In S. 605. case, Company an island the Ohio River around complainant owned Pennsylvania had authorized officers duly which harbor line statute declared to located a changed firm and stable. The War forever cross way complain- in such as to harbor lines line which never the state harbor ant’s land within navigable alleged, part waters been, complainant *8 The that Secretary bill averred United States. prosecutions criminal with to institutе proposed of War for his erec- against complainant proposed heavy penalties objected his own land. It was de- buildings on tion of United against this was a suit murrer that States party. lack -presence be for of its as must dismissed ground yield contention This declined to Court GOLTEA v. WEEKS.
536 ruling comprehensive the bill. The is so dismissing we many apt so authorities so refers 619 language pages at 620:
quote un- “If defendant constitutes an the conduct complain- interference with warrantable is not to be de- ant, equity protection resort its against one upon the the suit is ground feated from exemption of the United Unitеd States. The States personal liability officers does'not its from protect suit wrongfully rights property they persons whose 2 United States Barreme, Cranch, 170; invaded. Little v. 161 220, 221; Schild, 106 v. Lee, 196, Belknap v. U. S. 204; 167 U. S. Scranton v. Wesley, v. 10, 18; U. S. Tindal injury of an Wheeler, 152. And case 141, 179 S.U. not claim illegal the officer can action, his threatened principle has injunction process. immunity seek- officers respect state frequently applied been v. enactments. Osborn unconstitutional to enforce ing 843, 868; 738, 9 Wheat. Davis v. Bank of Pennoyer 140 S. McConnaughy, v. U. Gray, 203; 16 Wall. Donald, Smyth 165 U. v. 107, 112; S. 10; Scott v. 1, 159, 209 U. Ames, 466; parte Young, 123, Ex S. S.U. Telegraph Company, v. Western Union Ludwig 160; C., Co., R. & Ry. 135, I. 146; Herndon P. U. S. S. 636, 643-645. Cоllege, v. Clemson U. 155; Hopkins a federal applicable acting officer it is equally And validly authority authority or under an not his excess-of Co., Logging Union River R. R. Noble v. conferred. Mc- 171, Magnetic Healing v. 165, 172; School U. S. Annulty, 187 S. 94. interfere did ask the court to complainant
“The War, official discretion with the. com- of which things do the authority challenged charge of upon the The suit rests made. plaint was ac- merits must power, abuse of and its determined United States.” against is not a suit cordingly; : 9542° —2k-35 *9 271 U.S. sought
It is to avoid of this to application present the the case reference to later Roper, the case of Wеlls v. distinguishable. clearly U. S. 335. We think it Wells General acting a contract the Postmaster United States, by Roper the for four years agreed mail, furnish, collecting for use delivering the automobiles chauffeurs at a stipulated compensation. provision One of the contract was that or all any equipments might contracted for be discontinued at upon ninety days’ the Postmaster time notice General. Later, Congress authorized that official in his discretion use an appropriation buy to- and maintain automobiles for operating experimental wagon combined screen city delivery do service, and, order to collection this, he deemed to discontinue the service necessaiy it the plaintiff, gave the latter seasonable notice of the .and (cid:127) equity cancellation of the contract. The suit was a bill in enjoin annulling the Postmaster General from the con tract and interfering between the United States and plaintiff performance execution of the contract. The bill ground was dismissed suit was a against the United That States,. sought which the bill restrain trespass upon was not a plain plaintiff tiff. The automobiles of the were not taken from him away government officer. What dоing authority the officer was was’merely exercising the entrusted to him by law for the the Govern benefit of change ment in annulling a contract which involved no of possession or title to officer’s property. enjoin To action was in effect performance by specific enforcement of a against the United.States. -It was an affirm which, remedy sought ative- against the Government really though form merely officer, of an restrictive be mandatory against sovereign. The difference injunction tween an against illegal seizure of property against lawfully possessed and con cancеllation.of tract which involved no change possession is manifest. v,
GOLTRA WEEKS. Opinion of the Court. As necessary party the United States was not bill, action of in dis- Appeals, the Circuit Court of for lack missing injunction the bill and quashing *10 presence such, its can not be sustained. merits, think the now to the we that
Coming however, injunc- granting- temporary erred in the District Court finally tion, because, disclosed, the facts the lease of War the of terminated decision the - under communicated to Goltra Engineers, the. Chief of. under that sec- that, of8 the contract. It- is clear very § should terminated tion, Goltra the lease be agreed thаt the plant barges the should be returned that there judgment in his lessor,,if lessor decided that the conditions with the terms and noncompliance had been during from the appears It evidence lease. boats, got Goltra July 15, 1922, from when season up except tied they were not use but were The cargoes. small transportation comparatively two fulfill covenant did not -his bill itself admits Goltra says .pre- He he was as a common carrier. operate give Secretary’s refusal doing vented from so for-, expressly contract he The him the rates wished. forbade rail rates and exceeding prevailing rates -the bade by consent of the except rail rates rates than the less Secretary. Engineers,, Chief of lessor, the
The that'the stipulation Goltra was judgment if in his the lease could terminate did contract, obligations complying with not Engineers, exercise that the Chief its require hearing have a hold a court and should Secretary, Goltra was question compliance. to determine an- He 4th, March termination. notice, given no facts 8th, March tendered swered, could base Engineers the Chief Secretary or either the already from that reached any different conclusion Both the оbligations. fulfill failure Goltra 548 1925. U.S.
Secretary and the advised Engineers fully Chief of were of what Goltra did and did not do under contract. leave cases no doubt that such a for ter- provision mination of a contract is valid, unless there is an absence faith in the good Here, exercise the judgment. nothing of the kind is shown. a stipulation may Such a harsh an unwise one, one or but it is and binding valid if government entered into. It is often illustrated in in which contracts determination of a vital un- issue government is left to the of a der the decision Kihlberg States, v. United officer. 398; Sweeny S. United v. U. Gleason, States v. 618; S. Co., United States v. 588; Hanger Mason & 175 U. S. Henley, United States v. 323; Mar- 182 Fed. 776; tinsburg March, R. R. Co. S.U.
Nor that, does circumstance as in case, this *11 judgment lessor whose is to is a prevail party to the con legal alter the tract result. Of course the Engineer Chief is not the real in party interest. He professional is a expert, designated as such was lessor, act really only as an ing agent the Government. But if even stipulation this a private were between individuals, judg of parties ment one of the an such issue be, would in the of faith, absence bad conclusive. There are many where the cases contract makes the satisfaction of one parties respect of compliance the condition precedent fulfillment, good faith is all that is re quired justify rejection of work or product tendered. present Some them a convincing analogy to the case. In Magee Co., v. Scott &c. Lumber Minn. 11, the de fendant amade contract with a Duluth tug owner towto 7,000,000 feet of logs saw to its mill at Duluth from the north shore of Lake Superior. The contract contained a that, provision case the services should be satis .not factory, the defendant reserved the privilegé terminat ing contract at time. The defendant terminated GOLTRA v. WEEKS. Court. Opinion of the evidence delay. The of plaintiff’s because contrаct, court, directed honest, was clear the decision
being Supreme and the action was sustained a verdict Court. with of the Government on behalf
Much said has been officer government special power reference to the forcibly judicial .in and without assistance case, act such a we property, himself government repossess it is unneces- but which agree find difficult to might it on the is based Our conclusion to consider. sary us Colo- persons. private as it between law is administered Goltra notification to possession nel Ashbum took without himto other than that which had been communicated it is contract, terminating of War anxious Ashburn was evidence that Colonel clear injunc- a writ of before possession to take to. by Goltra, sought and that tion could be sued out where jurisdiction of the court take the fleet 'out of to make injunction. He was not directed he feared the Sécretary against of War opposition the seizure case he directed Goltra, but such resort that he He stands statement legal proceedings. rightly took without violence therefore was possession served. He order the court was possession when the Con- violently took whether he took it not. possession, force cede that he did with show of which was coercive. wrong. Concede that it was a seizure without process, injunction only But even looks to the future. At so, *12 the it was made that Goltra was not entitled hearing plain the possession, equity court —one —would go through restoring the idle form of property the then by way correcting wrong, Goltra the Colonel’s requiring redelivery to the lessor. is, given
As it has over fleet court taken to Goltra that remains is bond, only under issue injunction whether be restoration should 550, U.S. J., dissenting.
McReynolds, injunction maintained or the and the fleet be dissolved returned to the lessor.
On an from a appeal temporary injunction it often hap- pens that, where there is a balance convenience and issue, doubt as status quo restraining under order and the restoration should maintained be until a final hearing; case, but this court hearing it, the. issue was fully treated if on final The hearing. right of the lessor to take over the fleet under 8 of the con- § tract, unless judgment there fraud of termina- tion by the of Engineers, lessor, Chief of which we ' evidence, found no is think, clear. We therefore, injunction should dissolved and fleet' restored to the lessor.
The claim that the petitioner has deprived been of his due process without- has no law substance as' sustaining, injunction a reason for the temporary appealed had, from. He and is having, process has in this very due. issue, proceeding, and, on that the decision must go against taking him whether the possession of the boats Colonel.' Ashburn warranted or w.as not.
If Colonel Ashburn committed a breach the peace or illegally injured any person taking possession, he is responsible authority and to the proper person injured; affect the rights does not of the lessor under this n leaseor them in the vindication this review. .of the injunction
The revеrsal District Court by of Appeals affirmed, the Circuit Court and the cause is remanded to the District Court for further proceédings in opinion. conformity with this . Affirmed McReynolds. separate opinion Mr. Justice ' subject to the Theoretically, everybody in land is this if theory performances law. of what value But is-the go like those revealed this record unrebuked? *13 v. WEEKS. GOLTEA J., dissenting. McReynouds, judge into and inflated himself army officer, having An executioner, barges a of towboats and decided that fleet ought longer Eiver Louis no at St. Mississippi in the lying pos- held custody of a citizen who private remain them, and of sale under a lease sеssion of solemn in order make who, them United States and forty expended thousand dollars them operative, Sunday waiting until a ar- money. Then, own- of his by and vessels force rived, proceeded grab beyond jurisdiction to run them endeavored court. autocracies, familiar under but the
Action like that is live a better has been that we idea prevalent under system. an ample court, after'taking indemnifying
The trial injunction requiring pos- bond, temporary issued be restored and remain as before the of the vessels session rights parties until of all could be properly seizure Ap- and determined. Circuit Court of considered order, interlocutory and from this its reversed peals came here certiorari. decree cause the high-handed pur- climax to fitting As a measures officer, special counsel for by the the United States sued gravely our at bar appeared announced —“.Where finding has its power pronounced judg- the executive action, judicial proper sphere its judg- ment within necessary hot enforcement of executive ment is all compulsive reason that one, power for the may department the executive is be government judg- execution of its own processes exércised it in it is exercised the execution of just as ment, judgment.” judicial process stuff, for us at enough but, to smile such easy It dissipated by gentle evil effects are not unfortunately, enough condemnation forceful There' should gestures. eyes men have to read. long so prevent repetition 271 U.S. Syllabus. Sanborn Appeals Judge pre- In the Circuit Court pointed dissenting opinion sented a well-considered *14 question court was only judicable out that the before that injunction order for and the record whether or not the use of unlawful, improvident disclosed an or abusive required trial judge sound discretion which the wаs see Ex parte (2d) exercise. Fed. 838, 851; abuse, 389. no such He could find I. no than the neither can The trial court did more cir- We permitted. approve cumstances should its action commendation of the impelling courage.and good sense.
MORSE DRYDOCK & REPAIR COMPANY STAR,
STEAMSHIP NORTHERN et al. etc., THE CERTIORARI TO CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS THE FOR
SECOND CIRCUIT: Argued May 6, 7, No. 326. 7, 1926. Decided June 1926. It of Ship Mortgage Subsection 30 of the 5, Act of 1920, June § providing nothing therein shall be construed to confer a lien repairs for when the furnisher diligence exercise of reasonable could have ascertained that because of the terms of a charter party, agreement for vessel, any sale reason, person other ordering repairs authority was without to bind the vessel therefor, attempt dees not to forbid repairs a lien for. simply stipulated because the owner mortgagee has with a give not to paramount security ship; on the stipulation most that such a postpone can do is to party chargeable the claim of the with notice mortgagee. of it to that of the P: 553. Ship Mortgage 2. Under 5, Act of June 1920, a maritime lien repairs precedence ordered mortgage owner takes over a n ship executed, which was recorded the office of the Collector, repairs before the made, were and a copy certified kept ship’s papers which was with the since before time, ship’s not endorsed papers by Collector, notes of the payment until in the United States remain of the property. purchase price whole of the in this important provision lease, Section as follows: case, reads “ fleet, inspect plant, right reserves the lessor terms and that all the said any time to see work at the crews fulfilled, and lease are of this conditions or ob- monthly paid, are employees promptly and other judgment, in his non-compliance, tener; and terminating justify or conditions will the terms and tow- barges and said returning plant lease and moneys Treasury all lessor, boats be deemed Secretary of War shall bank to credit use of the lessor for the said by and due to rentals earned vessels.” 1921, approved agreement supplemental There was a Beach, H. War, by Lansing made Secretary of 'by the of Engi- then succeeded Chief Engineers, Chief of who for the construction provision Black. This made neers brought the fleet and use of facilities for the additional original contract. terms of the within the them in the delay construc there was set out The bill after parties and that both fleet, delivery tion